Teachers set a bad example for children by striking

The strike has two basic objectives — teachers getting more money and teaching fewer students.

Editor: Do the teachers really care about the education of the children of B.C., or just their bottom line each month?  What kind of an example is the strike teaching the children?  It teaches the children that should they not get their way at their job, stomp your foot, stop working at your job and stand around holding signs.

The teachers want a signing bonus.  How many taxpayers have ever gotten a signing bonus when we took a new job, much less agreed with our employer to continue working after demanding higher pay?  Why do they want to be rewarded for not working? The teachers are the ones who voted to stop working.

Usually when someone has been hired to do any type of a job, if he or she doesn’t like the working conditions or the pay, the person leaves and finds a different job.  When a person is hired and does not show up to do the work he or she was hired to do, and cannot give a very good explanation for not showing up, that person gets fired.  Do you get my point?

The teachers whine they are giving up their pay for the kids. They whine they can’t pay their bills.  No one forced the teachers to stop working.  They voted for themselves to go without pay.  A first-year teacher earns a lot more in a year then I do.

Maybe not all of the teachers on strike want to be on strike. Maybe there are a few teachers who are grateful to have a teaching job. Maybe there are a few teachers who want to teach without asking for more money.

Let’s not kid ourselves.  It is wanting more money for themselves and fewer students to teach (i.e. less work) in the classroom that the teachers’ union is fighting for.

School districts must stop offering tenure.  I am not aware of other companies that offer tenure to their employees.  The majority of the teachers live in a theory world, not the real world.

Paula Bowman,


Langley Times

Just Posted

Most Read